日历-抢跑进度

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose the calculation window, output fields, and the empty-targets fallback ('无 targets 时返回提示'). However, it does not explain the semantics of the color thresholds, the behavior when as_of is empty or invalid, or error handling for a nonexistent event_id. Useful but not complete behavioral disclosure.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

A single dense sentence that front-loads the calculation, then covers coloring, output structure, and the no-targets edge case. Every clause contributes information; nothing is filler. Minor deduction for density — the parentheticals and run-on structure make it slightly harder to parse quickly — but it is far from verbose.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

With two optional parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is the only documentation. It adequately covers the computation, the two return groups, and the fallback. Gaps remain: as_of semantics, color threshold definitions, and how to obtain a valid event_id (e.g., via calendar_event_detail or calendar_range are never referenced). For a calculation tool with this complexity, it is adequate but not complete.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It gives event_id meaning by anchoring the 30-trading-day window ('event-30交易日 → 今天'), and it explains what timeline/targets contain. But as_of is never mentioned at all — an agent cannot tell whether it is a valuation date, an output override, or the 'today' reference point. Compensation is partial, leaving a key parameter semantically dangling.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states a specific computation (cumulative gain over event-30 trading days → today), a coloring scheme (blue/green/orange/red for front-run degree), and the return shape (timeline, targets). This is clearly distinct from calendar_event_detail or calendar_range, though it never names those siblings explicitly. The verb '计算' plus resource '事件关联标的' makes the core purpose unambiguous.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

No when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative routing is provided. Among roughly 200 siblings including 8 calendar_* tools, an agent gets zero guidance on when to pick calendar_frontrun over calendar_event_detail, calendar_range, or calendar_upcoming. The intended use case (assessing how much an event has been front-run) is only implied by the title, not stated as a usage rule.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.